Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your Judeo-Christianity cannot harmonize with Indo-European Hellenism.

You’ll have to explain more. I think what you’re saying here is absurd on its face. The Greco-Christian notion of •order• (logos) dovetails extremely well with the Isaiahn concept of a “word” operating in manifestation and through time.

The fact is that it has already been •harmonized• into a sound, integral, intellectual system.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Such things will unfold, gradually. Suffice it to say that western Europe has been Americanized since the end of WWII.

We see this in countries like Poland, Hungary, Russia, Belarus, that were behind the Iron Curtain and protected from decades of American propaganda.

We see it in relation to Wokism — postmodernism that has infected Americanism through the Frankfurt School.
Neo-Cons are ex-Trotskyite's, children of (((immigrants from Eastern Europe))) that moved to the States in two waves, the first setting up the propaganda machine we know as Hollywood.

Well, this critical position, and the sources of it, I am quite familiar with.

What it implies are •nefarious influencers• that have rocked or jolted the Occident off of a defined platform or foundation.

But more than that it implies, if it cannot articulate exactly, an alternative to those outcomes held in contempt by critics.

The critical armaments and the critical impetus are insufficient if they do not include a holistic alternative.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Supernatural is always a psychological expression of dissatisfaction towards what is natural.

You make here, and you often make, tendentious declarations that result in absurdity.

It is absurdly incorrect to say, and believe, that working from metaphysical or supernatural impetus, and building or molding in our world with them, is some form of psychological dissatisfaction as if a pathology.

These terse expressions pretend to have aphoristic clarity but (to my ears) resonate with reductionism.
[/quote]

[Lorikeet]

Aspects of Platonism were in harmony with Abrahamism and its nihilistic ideals.
This strange Thracian Socrates came in contact with when he was at war brought the idea from the east.
Plato was a symptom of Hellenic decline, as was Socrates his sacrificial Jesus.

Metaphysis always served as a justification for the absurd yet comforting.

Americanism is immersed in nihilistic defensiveness.
A techno utopia that remains in an imminent future - and we are constantly "progressing" towards it.


The terms change, the tropes remain the same.

God is not dead....he's been renamed and de-anthropomorphized - abstracted.
He is now pure meta with no corporeality left to sacrifice for our sins.
One of his many new names is "humanity."
Another Abrahamic concoction.

[Dubious]

This is all falsely-premised. Things true in the past, and things true now or in the future, are not superseded by this boyish novelty. You seem stoned on yourself.

...and what was true in the past for at least 1600 years - and not over yet - that the bible was the word of god; that Jesus died for our sins and that you had to believe in him to be saved. Stoned isn't the word for it. There's hardly anything in the past which remains true any more, except its history. You have a great deal in common with IC and suchlike...intellectual remnants of the 14th century.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wait, hold on! Tucker Carlson interviews Alexandr Dugan?!?

What brave new world is it that has such people in’t?

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is all falsely-premised. Things true in the past, and things true now or in the future, are not superseded by this boyish novelty. You seem stoned on yourself.

...and what was true in the past for at least 1600 years - and not over yet - that the bible was the word of god; that Jesus died for our sins and that you had to believe in him to be saved. Stoned isn't the word for it. There's hardly anything in the past which remains true any more, except its history. You have a great deal in common with IC and suchlike...intellectual remnants of the 14th century.

You continually make that comparison (to IC), as if it is a devastating armament.

All you do though is to mimic popular tropes. Nothing more. What does “word of God” mean? It really means metaphysical order. And the Bible definitely contains the birth of important ideas in relation to a far larger concept. But you are immune to that understanding. Due (I believe) not to a virtue but rather a defect.

You, Dubious, have no idea whatever about what is true or not true. Zero. Why? Because conceptually any link to a constant in you is disrupted by your own self-generated noise.

[Age]

This is all falsely-premised. Things true in the past, and things true now or in the future, are not superseded by this boyish novelty. You seem stoned on yourself.

...and what was true in the past for at least 1600 years - and not over yet - that the bible was the word of god; that Jesus died for our sins and that you had to believe in him to be saved. Stoned isn't the word for it. There's hardly anything in the past which remains true any more, except its history. You have a great deal in common with IC and suchlike...intellectual remnants of the 14th century.

You continually make that comparison (to IC), as if it is a devastating armament.

All you do though is to mimic popular tropes. Nothing more. What does “word of God” mean? It really means metaphysical order.

What do you mean by, 'really means'?

And, what do you mean by, 'metaphysical order'?

If you do not explain these, then do you, really, understand them?

And the Bible definitely contains the birth of important ideas in relation to a far larger concept.

It could be said and argued that 'alice in wonderland' and other 'stories', or fairy tales, definitely contain so-called 'birth of important ideas in relation to a far larger concept'. But, so what?

But you are immune to that understanding. Due (I believe) not to a virtue but rather a defect.

Is it possible that you were, and still are, immune to that understanding, due to 'a defect'? Or, does this only apply to others, and thus not to you?

You, Dubious, have no idea whatever about what is true or not true. Zero. Why? Because conceptually any link to a constant in you is disrupted by your own self-generated noise.

That is a fairly big claim to make. Are you, absolutely, sure that that one has absolutely no idea, whatsoever, about what is true or not true?

Could you, "yourself alexis jacobi", possibly, be making some of your own 'self-generated noise' here, which is blocking out or preventing some Truth being noticed and recognized here? Or, is there no possibility of this, at all?

[Dubious]

You continually make that comparison (to IC), as if it is a devastating armament.

You are both dead ends, that's what you have in common.

You, Dubious, have no idea whatever about what is true or not true.

If that were true, that would make two of us. The main difference is, whereas you are merely programmed by what you read and conceptualize solely on that basis, I analyze based on its probability status and not specifically whether it be true or not. When I read, I don't unquestionably surrender myself to it, but use it as a catalyst for further inquiry if I find it at all interesting and not a waste of time.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ wrote: All you do though is to mimic popular tropes. Nothing more. What does “word of God” mean? It really means metaphysical order.

What do you mean by, 'really means'?

And, what do you mean by, 'metaphysical order'?

If you do not explain these, then do you, really, understand them?

Yes, Age, I believe that I understand what I am talking about within certainly, the parameters of any personal limitations. Simultaneously I perceive that many that I interchange with here on this forum seem to me to lack an understanding of what *metaphysical* refers to -- in the sense of its realness but its absolute non-tangibility.

The term Word of God is a trope in its most important and relevant sense:

trope (trōp)
n.
1. A figure of speech using words in nonliteral ways, such as a metaphor.
2. A word or phrase interpolated as an embellishment in the sung parts of certain medieval liturgies.

In theological conceptualization -- and I definitely subscribe to the realness, validity, existence and power of defined theological concepts -- the notion of Word of God really means, that is ultimately refers to, a metaphysical idea, or notion, or if you wish command, that enters our world exclusively through man. That is, only man being himself a *metaphysical creature* has the capability of receiving the types of ideas I am referring to. But to say *idea* is not enough though it will have to do for the present.

The idea of Word of God, then, has to do with a perceived and realized sense about *order* (in Sanskrit there is a similar concept Ṛta (/ɹ̩t̪ɐ/; Sanskrit ऋत ṛta "order, rule; truth; logos") which, coming to man from unseen reality, is then received by man and imposed, projected, installed, used as a design, for works in our concrete, tangible world.

The entire concept of a divinity, and a divine order, and the imposition of that order, and the end and purpose of such order ("order, rule; truth; logos") is what the Church attempts to build with, or in relation to, in this our world. One can speak of this in two distinct ways: 1) In the language of the faithful referring to a God who makes commands and oversees the created world, and 2) in a stricter philosophical sense as Logos: an order of ideas that arose simultaneously with the creation. So just as there are atoms and energies and all that is physical that we can sense and measure with our own senses and with sense-extensions (machines) so too everything that we refer to as *idea*, and certainly the higher realms of ideas containing far broader imperatives (design, plan, undertaking, mission) -- all of this, through non-tangible and non-locatable -- all of this is part-and-parcel of our *world*. That is, the manifest reality where we live and operate.

My interest, my focus, is in understanding the innermost dimensions of what we call The Christian Revelation. And my interest is in reading and understanding the meaning encapsulated within these theological definitions. Meaning is also extremely metaphysical. When we think about how something, anything, has a *meaning* that shows itself or reveals itself to an *intuitive awareness*. This is the sense of the (rather loaded and complex) word intellectus.

My present view goes like this: Most who write on this forum, and most of us as extrusions onto the plains of Modernity, have substantially lost the capacity to grasp ideas -- impetus, inspiration, meaning -- at the metaphysical level. The conceptual pathway to this understanding has been blocked, or sometimes severed, but in any case there is enormous static and interference which makes conception next to impossible.

So all that I am writing about here is REJECTED with no further sense of need to understand. This is, if I may be so bold, a modern problem. It is a *problem* that has deeply infected and affected a) our own selves, b) our cultural world, c) our intellectual world.

I define myself as 1) a student of this problem of severing away and turning away, and 2) as a student of the processes by which one returns to the respect, recognition, valuation, elevation and protection of a) the conceptual pathway through philosophical means (to order, rule; truth; logos"0 , and b) of those entities and institutions existing in our world that are the repositories of that responsibility.

Do you suppose that I imagine I am making headway here? That is, creating arguments or presentations that convince? In fact this is not my object! I have noticed that *really hard-headed people* and those committed to a range of modern conceptual and ideological positions cannot *hear* what I am writing about. Because of the fact that the essences of all that matter for us is, when you think it through, comes to us through invisibilities. All that is non-tangible. All that is metaphysical. And what is therefore supernatural in the theological sense.

You could -- one could -- for example despise Christianity and Catholicism with true virulence if one were inclined to that. There are many who exist within that mood. I do not recommend it. I recommend the complete opposite approach. A reevaluation, a reencounter. Even to suggest such a thing (here) will draw a rather violent species of ire from many. The idea is simply inconceivable (in a literal sense).

Since I am aware that nothing I can say convinces or moves anyone (by and large I mean) the reason I bother with my descriptions is to present the case to myself. Or as I say *for my own benefit*. That is all I can do: write what I think and strictly for my own purposes. It is a question of solidifying and concretizing what I believe are the most important things about life and being alive (having existence here in a human frame).

[Alexis Jacobi]

If that were true, that would make two of us.

No my friend -- and trust me on this one -- it really leaves you there by yourself.

You are both dead ends, that's what you have in common.

"Comparisons are odious" said Robert Bly, but I admit they are inevitable if they are carried out fairly. In your case though your central object is to denigrate through association. It is a rhetorical ploy. But I suggest it is not a good one and it is not a fair one.

But an essay on the difference between IC's more or less standard Americanish Evangelical Christian belief system, which also would include the entire and significant error that is Christian Zionism, is extremely far away from the idea-sets that I am working with.

Christianity, unfortunately, has a very deep *bottom end*. I mean that there are very few who seem to get it at the best and most profound level and can talk about it in strong and fair terms. In our present -- deeply contaminated by so many strange currents -- there are multitudes with unclear ideas, with tendentious ideas, that include all sort of inclusions (in the sense that a gem has imperfections -- *inclusions*).

I prefer to receive the ideas of those who operate intellectually -- spiritually if you will -- on the highest plane that I can seek out. And it is (in my case) always through the written word:books.

You are free as the proverbial bird to define either me or IC as *dead-ends* but note that that term is, in your writing, merely a deprecating rhetorical insinuation. What I connect with, and what moves and motivates me, certainly does not feel at all like a *dead-end*. Very much the opposite.

Could it possibly be that some sort of *dead-end* operates in you? I get no sense of movement in what you write and often just a great deal of bitterness and ire.

[Harbal]

My interest, my focus, is in understanding the innermost dimensions of what we call The Christian Revelation.

I thought your main interest was telling those of us who find "The Christian Revelation" indescribably boring how deficient we are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My interest, my focus, is in understanding the innermost dimensions of what we call The Christian Revelation.

I thought your main interest was telling those of us who find "The Christian Revelation" indescribably boring how deficient we are.

You must find things here sufficiently interesting to keep coming back. Why do you even bother?

You definitely suffer, Harbal, from a deficiency but it is not only about Christianity or the Christian revelation: you have no interest at all in philosophy -- that to which the forum is dedicated. You are, in a charming way, a Troll.

But I do not think that what you do -- fight against ideas you have no means of actually understanding -- is a bad thing here in this context. I mean of Philosophy Now. Their object seems to be to bring anyone and everyone into a semblance of conversation.

But a while back you did actually engage *philosophically*: here

I was impressed (I mean sort of!)

Anyway, my thought about you do not contain any animus. You are one among many many millions. A true postmodern extrusion!

[Harbal]

My interest, my focus, is in understanding the innermost dimensions of what we call The Christian Revelation.

I thought your main interest was telling those of us who find "The Christian Revelation" indescribably boring how deficient we are.

You must find things here sufficiently interesting to keep coming back. Why do you even bother?

I imagine everyone here has a preference for how they would like the world to be, but most can criticise what they don't like about it without trying to manipulate everyone else into seeing it their way. There are several would be manipulators on this forum, and that is what interests me, and why I keep an eye on your posts.

You definitely suffer, Harbal, from a deficiency but it is not only about Christianity or the Christian revelation:

Although I grew up in an environment with a background noise of Christianity, it never really touched me, and has never meant anything to me. I have always thought of churchy things as boring, and I don't expect to suddenly develop an interest in religion, so this is a deficiency I will be stuck with for the rest of my life.

you have no interest at all in philosophy -- that to which the forum is dedicated.

That's not true.

You are, in a charming way, a Troll.

It came quite late in life, but I did eventually find my niche.

But I do not think that what you do -- fight against ideas you have no means of actually understanding

I might not understand your attraction to them, but I understand their dangers.

But a while back you did actually engage *philosophically*: here

I don't seem to be able to help it sometimes, but I try not to make a habit of it.

Anyway, my thought about you do not contain any animus.

That's because I have taken care to not quite push you over the edge.

[Dubious]

If that were true, that would make two of us.

No my friend -- and trust me on this one -- it really leaves you there by yourself.

I wonder how many believe that when your trust account on the site seems so exceptionally low!

I also wonder how many actually give a damn about what you say...or for that matter what I or anyone says! I realize you don't like to acknowledge it, but let's face it; it's all null and void in the end, not unlike all the metaphysical garbage you keep reading believing thereby the world can be reformed. You're the stand-up definition of puerile.